Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: The Spin

  1. #1

    Default The Spin

    They're pushing the narrative hard - but having read the full court document (not the selected excerpts they're posting in the news articles) - seems like they're spinning a portion of the legal argument without providing the context in the document both before and after those excerpts.

    Decide for yourself.

    https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...s-dominion.pdf

    It's a slog, but an interesting read. Media would have you think it's one thing - when it's actually a supporting portion to historical legal precedent against a specific complaint in the Plaintiffs legal filing, which is only a portion of the overall lawsuit.

    One interesting part later: "Id. at 731 (emphasis added). The Complaint comes nowhere close to meeting this daunting standard. It alleges no facts which, if proven by clear and convincing evidence, would show that Sidney Powell knew her statements were false (assuming that they were indeed false, which Defendants dispute). Nor have Plaintiffs alleged any facts showing that Powell “in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of h[er] publication.” In fact, she believed the allegations then and she believes them now."

    IMO - media is cherry-picking a portion of a complete legal brief that covers numerous legal avenues required to protect their client, against specific legal arguments filed by the Plaintiff. Of course the media knows that nuance will be lost on the majority, hence... the spin.
    Last edited by Shaps; 03-22-2021 at 09:58 PM.

  2. #2

    Default

    What's more obvious is you're citing an opinion without even reading the document. What the hell does "Media" have to do with this woman's meritless attempt to challenge venue, jurisdiction or ability to show a loss? Dominion was slandered mercilessly by Trump, Giuliani, Powell and half of Fox News with absolutely no fact. As a result, harm to the marketability of their product was affected.

    To prove jurisdiction, Dominion needs only show that the offending act was committed in multiple states, affected interstate commerce and that no single local court could claim superseding jurisdiction by contract. That Powell made her lies in multiple states, that Dominions business opportunities reach to multiple states and countries and that there's no underlying contract between Powell and Dominion plants jurisdiction firmly at the Federal Court.

    The only spin here is being conducted by you and Sidney Powell.

  3. #3

    Default

    That Sidney Powell and her lawyers are trying to pass off her comments as little more than theatre is the true joke here. Trump relied on her to try and steal an election, but oh, jk I really wasn't serious with any of that.

  4. #4

    Default

    Did you even read the full document? Every point you just made - was countered based on legal standing within it.

    Hence the cherry-picked portions the media is showing you, and which you are regurgitating, without the context of how it applies to Dominions assertions and the legal arguments to refute them.

    Your second comment is the one that gives it away that you didn't read it.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaps View Post
    Did you even read the full document? Every point you just made - was countered based on legal standing within it.

    Hence the cherry-picked portions the media is showing you, and which you are regurgitating, without the context of how it applies to Dominions assertions and the legal arguments to refute them.

    Your second comment is the one that gives it away that you didn't read it.
    You didn't read the document, you obviously didn't read my post and offer absolutely no refutation to my points. Point, match win.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •